Summary
A 21-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The government alleged the applicant intentionally omitted drug use between 1999 and 2002 on his security clearance application (SF 86), specifically when answering "no" to question 27. This omission was cited as a potential violation of federal law against making false statements to the government (18 U.S.C. § 1001). Additionally, the applicant was alleged to have been arrested and charged with an alcohol/drug-related offense in August 2002.
The judge found that the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. The omission of drug use was determined to be an isolated incident that occurred when he was 17 years old. The applicant demonstrated candor by disclosing his past drug use during the subsequent background investigation.
Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant had shown significant personal growth and responsibility since the incidents. This, combined with credible testimony and a solid work record, led to the decision to grant the security clearance.
Why the Applicant Prevailed
- The applicant's omission of drug use was an isolated incident occurring when he was 17 years old.
- He disclosed his drug use during the background investigation, demonstrating candor.
- The applicant has shown significant personal growth and responsibility since the incidents.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A5.1.2.2raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
- E2.A10.1.1raisedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct
- E2.A10.1.2.1raisedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses
- E2.A5.1.3.2appliedThe Falsification Was an Isolated Incident, Was Not Recent, and the Individual Has Subsequently Provided Correct Information Voluntarily
- E2.A10.1.3.1appliedThe Criminal Behavior Was Not Recent
- E2.A10.1.3.6appliedThere Is Clear Evidence of Successful Rehabilitation
Key Rule Quoted
“A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedJan 19, 2006
- Answer filed—
- Hearing heldApr 26, 2006
- Decision dateSep 26, 2006
Cite For
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E Due to Age and Isolated Incidents
- Successful Rehabilitation in the Context of Past Criminal Conduct Under Guideline J
- Importance of Full Disclosure During Background Investigations